Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

Rocket Surgeon said:

You could compare it to Debbie Does Dallas and sure it's more of a family film. Dirty Harry was Rated R. It had sexual situations, nudity, AND violence, profanity...etc.

There are movies where a single scene can command that rating or it's an overall thematic R.

We're going to have this out yet again, but bloody corpses, drinking contests graphic head wounds and exploding/imploding/melting heads do not make for childrens fare.

Instead of comparing it to a Rated R movie, which it was at one time compare it to a rated G movie like, maybe, oh lets say Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, truely intended as a movie the entire family could enjoy.

I get your point, but Indiana Jones was established/submitted and garnered an R. I'm responding to someone who posted:

Click to expand...

Keep in mind there was no PG-13.......so it was either PG or R.

To suggest 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is strictly an adult film is complete hogwash to me. I think most everyone here grew up with the film as kids.

Maybe it's not appropriate for a 4, 5, or 6 year old......but 8, 9, 12 years old? It's the greatest thing in the world.

They were able to avoid the R-rating by obstructing the exploding head at the end with the fire or whatever is in there. If it was meant to be a strictly adult film, they probably wouldn't have cared if it was R-rated.

And if 'Crystal Skull' is such a "kiddie" movie, why does is it PG-13?

I pointed out 'The Searchers' to show how one of cinema's most well-respected films (and a favorite of the likes of Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola and Lucas - the first few minutes of 'Last Crusade' seem to be an homage to John Ford) is very serious and adult in nature, but also contains lighthearted elements.......which is kind of a product of its time. Like I said, we didn't really have raunchy, R-rated humor before the mid-1960's.

While a film like 'The Searchers' is not a serial, I think it still speaks of the time period, and has helped shape Spielberg's sense of humor. In many ways, it's a throwback to this more innocent time period.

I was less concerned about the action scenes in the old serials, and more with the fact they were very lighthearted in nature and certainly, they did not take themselves seriously.

And neither do any of the 4 Indiana Jones movies.

Darth Vile said:

WTF are you going on about??? It was quite obvious that Cole was being a bit more general with his observation... as was I.

Click to expand...

Well, then that's your problem because I wasn't being general about the influences and was specifically talking about serials (re: Cole's claim). The only reason I joined this discussion is because of his misleading statement. Get with the program, Duh-arth!

Darth Vile said:

If you are simply stating that Indy movies aren't like the old serials because they have more humour in the action scenes... then so what?

Click to expand...

Please, stop putting words in my mouth! They ARE inspired by the serials (ANY MORON KNOWS THAT...) As a collector of these old, adventure flicks, I'm very much aware of the parallels... AGAIN, you are missing my point entirely...

More often than not, people on this forum have large misconceptions regarding the 'cliffhanger' influences and my initial reply to Cole was an attempt to set things straight.

---
Re: Crystal Skull Hatred Knowing No Bounds:
By creating threads such as this, you "Skull" champions are only perpetuating a forum for dissent.

Does a screening of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" demonstrate a HATRED towards "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade"? Of course not...

Although I don't think I ever made the argument that the serials had humor during the action scenes.......just that they had lighthearted/comedic tones and certainly above all else, they didn't take themselves seriously.

'Star Wars' kind of comes from similar roots as well, and has lighthearted/comedic elements too.

But again, to me, it's largely irrelevant if there's a comedic gag during the action or not during the action - it's the tone that matters.

Grit, violence and inventive deaths with an amoral anti-hero, really scary and cliff hanger traps and scenes, a good story, down and dirty film making which really appeals, and so on and so forth - yep, Raiders had it all. A gradual decline has culminated in a film like Crystal Skull where all the deficiencies are obvious, and, god, we're trying to like it, but we can't fully do it. We would have been better off getting people who had never heard of Indiana Jones to make an Indiana Jones movie in order to make it right. Them's are fightin' words, I know. So be it.

Mickiana said:

Grit, violence and inventive deaths with an amoral anti-hero, really scary and cliff hanger traps and scenes, a good story, down and dirty film making which really appeals, and so on and so forth - yep, Raiders had it all. A gradual decline has culminated in a film like Crystal Skull where all the deficiencies are obvious, and, god, we're trying to like it, but we can't fully do it. We would have been better off getting people who had never heard of Indiana Jones to make an Indiana Jones movie in order to make it right. Them's are fightin' words, I know. So be it.

Click to expand...

So somebody else would've made a movie as good as 'Raiders of the Lost Ark?' I don't think they have for nearly 30 years, why start now.

Only Spielberg knows the signature tone/style of Indy. 'Crystal Skull' is still Indy to me. Sorry if it doesn't do it for you.

i cant buy any indy 4 stuff

I myself love Indy 4 but in the city where i live, i dont think they think the same thing

All the local toy stores and bookstore have practically shunned Indy 4 ,
you cant find any of the action figures or any other Indy 4 merchandise but yet you can find things from the first three movies,and in the book store they have yet to sell any Indy 4 books.

its really annoying me, it cant be that bad, cant it?

Cole said:

Although I don't think I ever made the argument that the serials had humor during the action scenes.......

Click to expand...

No, but you suggested it which is where things started to go awry. Re: Comedy during the jungle chase in "Skull":

Cole said:

...I don't see how it's much different than, say, the comedic breaks in the big action sequence in 'Last Crusade' with the tank.

Because that's all it is - lighthearted comedic breaks in the action.

Click to expand...

Attila responded with talk of "humorously handled action sequences" in the Indy films. In your reply:

Cole said:

I almost think more than anything, it's probably inspired by lighthearted slapstick humor that's been around since the very beginning of movies with the likes of Charlie Chaplin. And it's probably something not completely out of tune with the cliffhanger serials that inspired Indiana Jones.

Click to expand...

Very out of tune, that's my point. (I wonder where the romance elements were inspired from? Hmmm...Maybe from the romance "that's been around since the very beginning of movies"?)

Cole said:

But again, to me, it's largely irrelevant if there's a comedic gag during the action or not during the action - it's the tone that matters.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. What you & Darth aren't getting is that I'm not offering ANY kind of opinion on Indy 4! I merely stated that "humorously handled action sequences" in the Indy films would NOT have been inspired by the serials...For some absurd reason, the pair of you are taking this as a form of criticism.

Darth Vile said:

...then so what?

Click to expand...

Indeed. So what? A Texan Indy film marathon didn't include "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Who cares?

Stoo said:

Indeed. So what? A Texan Indy film marathon didn't include "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Who cares?

Click to expand...

Obviously not enough Texans cared to demand that the marathon include all four films!

Indeed, who cares. You can always watch the movie at leisure on DVD in the privacy of your own home, where nobody will know you're engaging in the embarrassing activity of actually doing so.

Now where is the tongue-in-cheek emoticon?

Stoo said:

No, but you suggested it which is where things started to go awry. Re: Comedy during the jungle chase in "Skull":
Attila responded with talk of "humorously handled action sequences" in the Indy films. In your reply:
Very out of tune, that's my point. (I wonder where the romance elements were inspired from? Hmmm...Maybe from the romance "that's been around since the very beginning of movies"?)
I agree with you. What you & Darth aren't getting is that I'm not offering ANY kind of opinion on Indy 4! I merely stated that "humorously handled action sequences" in the Indy films would NOT have been inspired by the serials...For some absurd reason, the pair of you are taking this as a form of criticism.
Indeed. So what? A Texan Indy film marathon didn't include "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Who cares?

Click to expand...

Ok, that's fine, we get it.........the old Saturday serials didn't have many comedic gags during action scenes. I don't think I ever really made the argument otherwise, so this all seems fairly useless.

Cole said:

Keep in mind there was no PG-13.......so it was either PG or R.

Click to expand...

Rest assured that fact is not lost on me.

Cole said:

To suggest 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is strictly an adult film is complete hogwash to me. I think most everyone here grew up with the film as kids.

Click to expand...

See, this is exactly the kind of comment that leads to, as you put it "fairly useless" discussions. I'm not suggesting Raiders is strictly an adult film, I'm stating it. It's not intended for kids as suggested earlier.

Cole said:

Maybe it's not appropriate for a 4, 5, or 6 year old......but 8, 9, 12 years old? It's the greatest thing in the world.

Click to expand...

Don't know how old you are but once again, rotting and freshly skewered corpes, drinking contests, graphic head wounds...ect. are not childrens fare, THATs why Indy doesn't fire his gun in Skull, THAT's why you don't see the US Solders, The Ughas, ect SHOT. The tone od the film is very different, right on down to the crappy comedic element in Skull.

Cole said:

They were able to avoid the R-rating by obstructing the exploding head at the end with the fire or whatever is in there. If it was meant to be a strictly adult film, they probably wouldn't have cared if it was R-rated.

Click to expand...

No...no. They made a Rated R film. Then they thinly veiled it for a chance at the kind of money an R Rated film wouldn't have made them.

Cole said:

And if 'Crystal Skull' is such a "kiddie" movie, why does is it PG-13?

Click to expand...

Really, it would help if you read the posts. I wrote about single scenes vs themes not long ago.

Another practical example? The same way Some G movies add a little something for the chance at PG movie money. Because PG, (and now PG-13) movie goers have the most expendible income and they spend it at the movies.

Cole said:

And neither do any of the 4 Indiana Jones movies.

Click to expand...

Please, where does Raiders NOT take itself seriously?

James said:

It wasn't a children's movie, but it was intended as a movie the entire family could enjoy. In this respect, it was a major departure from action films of the time- which actually were dark, gritty, and violent. Just as a film like Dirty Harry helped set the tone for the 1970s, in many ways, Raiders did the same for the 1980s.

Click to expand...

I agree, I think the style of Raiders heralded a new style of movie for the 80's and in many ways was a trendsetter and a much copied formula.

I remember watching Raiders for the first time on video when I was maybe ten years old back in the mid-80's, and I thought it was a real treat because to my mind then and still to this day Raiders is not a movie that was aimed at kids. I think its a movie that has a more grown up theme, with some violence and some light hearted moments.

Even now if you compare the tone and humour between Raiders and KOTCS there is a vast difference between them. I dont understand and can't see why the series evolved to include some of the child friendly humour and scenes that we saw in KOTSC & LC. But as I mentioned, Raiders was a trendsetter and most of the films that copied it took the humour to another level and made them more family orientated than Raiders was. But the Indy series has slowly adopted this formula as the films went on. Not necessarily a bad thing in moderation, but I think some of the humour and scenes in KOTCS were too childish and cheesy. Although its clearly from the same family as Raiders and retains some its magic I think the addition of the bad humour waters down the formula.

The same, to a lesser degree, can be said of the SW series. Some of the humorous elements that were added, especially in the first 2 prequels seemed out of tone with the rest of the series.

Theres always the chance that as I've got older this humour just doesnt seem funny to me anymore, would I have enjoyed KOTCS better 27 years ago when I was 10? Maybe. But surely no one can say the humour in KOTCS is the same that we saw in Raiders? I just can't see it.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Rest assured that fact is not lost on me. See, this is exactly the kind of comment that leads to, as you put it "fairly useless" discussions. I'm not suggesting Raiders is strictly an adult film, I'm stating it. It's not intended for kids as suggested earlier.Don't know how old you are but once again, rotting and freshly skewered corpes, drinking contests, graphic head wounds...ect. are not childrens fare, THATs why Indy doesn't fire his gun in Skull, THAT's why you don't see the US Solders, The Ughas, ect SHOT. The tone od the film is very different, right on down to the crappy comedic element in Skull.

No...no. They made a Rated R film. Then they thinly veiled it for a chance at the kind of money an R Rated film wouldn't have made them.

Really, it would help if you read the posts. I wrote about single scenes vs themes not long ago.

Another practical example? The same way Some G movies add a little something for the chance at PG movie money. Because PG, (and now PG-13) movie goers have the most expendible income and they spend it at the movies.


Please, where does Raiders NOT take itself seriously?

Click to expand...

It's pretty clear we aren't going to see eye-to-eye, but let me say a few points first.

Yes, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is the grittiest, and yes, there's a progressively lighter tone in the subsequent sequels.......now that Spielberg has made some very raw, intimate, personal films like 'Schindler's List' and 'Saving Private Ryan'.......I think he now sees Indy as an opportunity to make good-old fashioned movies that are just fun.

Where I disagree with you is I think your opinion is much too drastic.

You're talking about the corpses and the heads exploding in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'......come on. It's done in a fairly "cartoonish" manner. Spalko bursts into flames in 'Skull,' it's got a man eaten alive by ants.....does that make it adult-oriented? No, because it's kinda campy and cartoonish.

Again, if we're talking 4, 5, 6 years old.......I agree it might be too young. But I think most kids around the ages of 7, 8, 9 years old can more than handle the film.

For heavens sake, look at the toy line that came out for the movie in 1981/1982 - obviously directed at kids.

I'm shocked you think 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' takes itself seriously. It's obviously never intended to be anything more than a fun, adventure pulp story.......clearly inspired by the old Satuday serials.

Cole said:

Where I disagree with you is I think your opinion is much too drastic. You're talking about the corpses and the heads exploding in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'......come on. It's done in a fairly "cartoonish" manner.

Click to expand...

The Ratty Nepalese full screen headshot was NOT cartoonish. Toht's head melt wasn't either. Satipo hung up by a spike through his forehead?

Cole said:

Spalko bursts into flames in 'Skull,' it's got a man eaten alive by ants.....does that make it adult-oriented? No, because it's kinda campy and cartoonish.

Click to expand...

"Kinda campy?" Please define what aspect of camp you mean because there are so many. I'm interested in how you frame those scenes as kid friendly...
We are definitely not going to see eye to eye...those are EXACTLY the two of the things that made Skull PG-13, adventure violence and scary images.

Cole said:

Again, if we're talking 4, 5, 6 years old.......I agree it might be too young. But I think most kids around the ages of 7, 8, 9 years old can more than handle the film.

Click to expand...

Skull? Do you HAVE kids?

Cole said:

For heavens sake, look at the toy line that came out for the movie in 1981/1982 - obviously directed at kids.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember that anemic toy "line" that came out and also that Lucas FORCED Hasbro to produce it if they wanted to keep Star Wars. How well did that toy line do? Hmmm. Yeah, I know NOT WELL.

Cole said:

I'm shocked you think 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' takes itself seriously.

Click to expand...

Please, save melodrama because I wrote NO SUCH THING. I want you to state what your opinion is based on...AGAIN, where does Raiders not take itself seriously?

Cole said:

It's obviously never intended to be anything more than a fun, adventure pulp story.......clearly inspired by the old Satuday serials.

Click to expand...

Please, instead of regurgitating the same tired clichés we've all heard, read and repeated ad nauseum, give us COLE'S thoughts and comments.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Yeah, I remember that anemic toy "line" that came out and also that Lucas FORCED Hasbro to produce it if they wanted to keep Star Wars.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, do you have a source for this?

Kevin said:

I'm curious, do you have a source for this?

Click to expand...

Whoops! Should have said Kenner! Besides a friend who works at Hasbro, there's a fine Area 51 segment with Les David who discusses it on the Indy Cast.

Since rediscovering Bond, and recalling the genesis of Indy from the Raiders Story Transcripts, it leads me to conclude that Raiders, while inspired by the pulp serials, got a lot of it's style from the 007 movies that ushered in the action hero (who frequently plays like an unpleasant anti-hero) in high stakes situations in a less than realistic environment.

Whereas Bond was not a John le Carre type spy, Indy was not a documentary style adventurer.

For all their comedy, Bond movies also had their bodies, blood, and brutality in the 1960s, not to mention a bit of mysogyny from the 'hero'. All the movies up to 1985 are PG rated, after that there's one '15' and the remainder are '12' .

I think, then, that it's because of it's style, that Raiders got away with what it did. Nowadays it's pretty standard fare.

Rocket Surgeon said:

The Ratty Nepalese full screen headshot was NOT cartoonish. Toht's head melt wasn't either. Satipo hung up by a spike through his forehead?

"Kinda campy?" Please define what aspect of camp you mean because there are so many. I'm interested in how you frame those scenes as kid friendly...
We are definitely not going to see eye to eye...those are EXACTLY the two of the things that made Skull PG-13, adventure violence and scary images.

Skull? Do you HAVE kids?

Yeah, I remember that anemic toy "line" that came out and also that Lucas FORCED Hasbro to produce it if they wanted to keep Star Wars. How well did that toy line do? Hmmm. Yeah, I know NOT WELL.

Please, save melodrama because I wrote NO SUCH THING. I want you to state what your opinion is based on...AGAIN, where does Raiders not take itself seriously?


Please, instead of regurgitating the same tired clichés we've all heard, read and repeated ad nauseum, give us COLE'S thoughts and comments.

Click to expand...

Ok......what about Satipo? To me, his facial expression and the fact that it's pretty obviously fake make it fairly "campy" and not grisly realistic.

Toht's death is similar.....obvious over-the-top special effects.

Rat Face's death is proably the most violent.

lol, Lucas "forcing" Kenner to make the toys? Somehow I find that doubtful. I also find it doubtful that they didn't sell well since Kenner expanded their line in subsequent years.

Are you going to say Indy wasn't massively popular among kids in the 1980's, 1990's?

Cole said:

Ok......what about Satipo? To me, his facial expression and the fact that it's pretty obviously fake make it fairly "campy" and not grisly realistic.

Click to expand...

Obviously fake insofar as they obviously didn't kill Alfred Molina? Sure. Other than that...I think it's pretty well done.

It's nothing that they don't show on cable television.

maybe i just think of it as a kids movie because i saw it as a kid and it blew my mind. what 13 year old boy doesn't dream of adventure, buried treasure, and fighting nazis? but clearly, even if it wasn't intended as a kids movie, the bulk of it fans were kids, so it makes sense for them to make the sequels more kid friendly. alteast that's my take on the whole thing.